I am wondering if anyone may have seen a case of a child protection complaint being made vindictively, similar to the circumstance below. It is very apparent that one cannot be held responsible for making an claim where a suspicion is found incorrect, BUT within the claim, the complainant claimed that the respondent was 'clinically diagnosed' as having a 'personality disorder'. This was put forth as a known fact rather than a suspicion. The claim resulted in the respondent being disallowed from recovering her children from her abusive partner. The claim was made within minutes of her being told by a magistrate that she could not be refused her request to remove her children from the household of her abusive ex by the ex or the police, especially as the ex was known to have broken some of the bones and had physically abused her children.

He is not the father. She maintains sole custody with no visitation granted to any other party. She has had all custody since the birth of her second of two children. The claim resulted in her being contacted by child protection and being disallowed to remove her children from the home. She has never been diagnosed with such a disorder and believes that either the ex or the police officer who ignore her injuries (bleeding from the back of her head) and whom she has advised she is placing a complaint to IBAC, having done as her lawyer advised and having contacted the police to enquire why her complaint has not been investigated and why she had to leave her home without them at the demands of the police when she had called for assistance when hit over the back of her skull with an iron pole.

The claim made to child protection stated that it was a fact the she had been diagnosed with a borderline personality disorder and a drug and alcohol problem. She has never had such a diagnosis and most certainly does not have a substance abuse problem. She waited till it was confirmed through doctors and drug tests that the claims were completely false and is livid that such claims were made and that her name has been publicly dragged through the mud, as even when it was confirmed, her new flat mate, her children's teachers, her GP and many other professional she associates with, have been contacted by the protective services and been questioned over her behaviour (which has been a mixture, disbelief, tearfulness, fear for her children's safety and anger at such bad policing and such insulting claims).
She wishes to place a number of complaints including to IBAC re: police corruption, to child protection re: ex's violence, to the department of education re: her children's school and then civil suits to recover money and investments stolen by the ex, and damages for the cost of repairing her broken nose and the pain and suffering associated with her many injuries. She understands that one may not sue another for filing a complaint to child protection but she feels that she might be successful in claiming a defamatory publication as the claim was asserted as well founded FACT, where no such fact exists. In addition she believes misconduct has occurred as she feels that it was the police that made the claim and that it was done to scare her out of placing a complaint against them to IBAC.

Does placing a complaint that asserts a claim as fact where no such fact exists, and it must have been known to the complainant that the fact did not exist constitute defamation?

If the claim is made by the police she plans to sue, does it constitute misfeasance of public office, defamation and/or police misconduct?

Hi @miss alley
Apologies - I'm struggling to interpret the large paragraph of text.
To clarify, did the ex-partner and/or the police make the claim that the mother was clinically diagnosed with a personality disorder, etc.?

This post is general information only and must not be read as legal advice.

Stop hovering to collapse...Click to collapse...Hover to expand...Click to expand...

LawTap Verified Lawyer

Alex - I am wondering (looking at your various posts), to what extent these are "homework" questions,
or to what extent they might simply lunch-table chat among law students?
We may be more willing to contribute to the latter than the former...

DISCLAIMER: Material posted in this forum represents my personal opinion(s) only.
Material posted in this forum does not contain authorities, is hypothetical and general in nature,
and, even if the language of a post suggests otherwise, does not apply to your specific case.
My posts are mere suggestions, and are not an alternative to fully considered legal advice.

Remember - it's a really bad idea to make big decisions based on what some guy says on the internet.

Stop hovering to collapse...Click to collapse...Hover to expand...Click to expand...